Sorry for the delay. Haven't been on since my last post on this topic. I understand where you're coming from, but let's face it– Mukasey is the closest thing to the kind of nominee the far-left Democrats in the Senate want. Somebody mentioned it in an earlier comment to this blog– if Mukasey's nomination is not approved, it would open the door for another backdoor nomination, possibly during the Christmas break. And if that happens, we'll be stuck with another neocon crony in the Justice Department who will DEFINITELY do Bush's bidding. He did it with John Bolton in the UN, and I wouldn't doubt it for a second that he would repeat that little endaround.

You may not like Mukasey's responses to the questioning, but responses to questions posed by the Judiciary Committee alone shouldn't be the be-all end-all for an AG nominee. Mukasey, as Chuck Schumer said, has a reputation that he puts "the rule of law first." I don't think that's going to change.

Ashcroft was a neocon crony. Gonzales was a definite neocon crony. There's not much in Mukasey's record that suggests that he would follow in his predecessor's footsteps. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and confirm him. As I stated before, he won't be in power for long anyway. On January 20, 2009, the country will get a new AG and a fresh start... hopefully.

Now we need you to take your conviction to your colleagues and convince them, that if a guy can't decide what side of the water-board the USAG needs to be on, and just where the USAG needs to stand on who must conduct himself within the "Law", there can be no place for him in government period. Then please call up the DECIDER and let him know that you need a candidate post haste who will have zero ambiguity about these matters of settled law.

Rush Limbaugh designated him "Leaky Leahy" after Leahy disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The information released by Leahy was not classified and it was determined there was no ethical or criminal violation

John Chicago

Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees. At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked up-or-down votes on 60 Clinton nominees and in most cases, even denied them hearings and committee votes.

SHAME SHAME SHAME on the GOP

In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized
"submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

As an aside for you Dems out there...

Hillary's negatives are so bad that she polls below 49% in a head to head against RON PAUL!!! for god's sake! Ron Paul!

She will get slaughtered and we are all looking forward to it. Maybe then, once and for all, she will go back to Arkansas.

I predict a divorce from Slick Willy, the nation's adulterer, when she loses because he will be of no more use to her.

Guess who controls the House and Senate??? Democrats! If they want to ban waterboarding they can do it. If they really have issues with waterboarding, why don't they just say so with a ban???

Answer that one Wynter.

I have to laugh when you and the other concerned libs fret about our troops being subjected to waterboarding if we allow it.

News Flash!!! Terrorists who capture our people don't waterboard them..THEY CUT THEIR HEADS OFF. Remember Danny Pearl??? Guess who cut his head off??? KSM. The same guy we captured and who spilled the beans on at least three plans after he was waterboarded.

Of course if we followed your logic, we would still be scratching our heads trying to figure out why he won't tell us anything.

Again, any President will tell the CIA to do whatever they need to do to get info if our lives are at stake. No President wants to go on TV and say we had the person(s) with knowledge in our hands but did not want to subject them to "torture" so thousands of lives were lost.

Once you nominate Hillary, you can sit back and watch her get slaughtered in the election.

Just tellin it like it is.

Posted By Steve, Lyons, CO : November 2, 2007 3:07 pm

But someone that changes positions on driver's licenses for illegals within a two minute span should be our president?

Glad to see you're on board there buddy.
Posted By Chip Celina OH : November 2, 2007 5:17 pm

it's not one or the other,
it's time the people woke up and took our democracy from the both sides,

the whole if you dont blindly support one side you have to blindly support the other is complete lunacy

the idea that we are all subjects of the federal government should be viewed as treason, we have the power not the 2 gangs of criminals that want us to be their serfs and slaves

Posted By Ray, Rochester : November 2, 2007 4:13 pm

Hey Ray, who was in charge of the Senate when those didn't pass in 2005 and 2006? 55-44-1 if I recall, which means that at least one Republican agreed, too.

Posted By Steve, Lyons, CO : November 2, 2007 3:07 pm

But someone that changes positions on driver's licenses for illegals within a two minute span should be our president?

Glad to see you're on board there buddy.

You are citing the Congress of 2005 for goodness sake. The majority of the Senate was Republican. It's clear that the GOP has been supporting this obviously insane president throughout this war. So now you are blaming the 2007 Congress based on what the 2005 Congress "couldn't" get through?

Also, it's a simple fact known by intelligence experts in the CIA that acts of torture on a suspect doesn't typically get you the truth. It only gets you what the suspect thinks you want to hear so you will stop. The only thing it is good for is as an unused weapon to hang over their heads as a possibility. But even that is more than likely to be useless.

Sorry but you have been watching too many Chuck Norris flicks. Good intel comes from real human intel on the ground backed up with electronic surveillance. Water boarding is only good for getting our troops tortured during the next battle with another country now that the Geneva Conventions have been thrown out the window.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

If the Dems want to define waterboarding as torture, they should pass a law that says it is.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Dems have had two chances to ban waterboarding, The Deatainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Senator Ted Kennedy even added an ammendment to the Military Commissions Act prohibiting waterboarding. The act lost on the Senate by a vote of 46 to 53.

Face facts, no President, including those Dems who seem disgusted by waterboarding, will ever hold back the CIA from "torturing" a captured terrorist who has intimate and specific knowledge of a nuclear device planted in a major American city.

Do any of you honestly think that President will want to have the deaths of possibly millions of Americans on his/her hands knowing that he/she could have prevented such a calamity?

Any President will tell the CIA to do whatever they need to do to get the information before the disaster occured. If you don't believe this then you really are living in la la land.

The candidates will always tell you lemmings whatever you want to hear just to get your votes. Once they are in office, though, all bets are off and they will do whatever is necessary to save lives. Thank god for that.

Are you serious?

"Mukasey is the closest thing out there to a moderate attorney general nominee that we can expect from the Bush administration."

So the answer is to settle? Robb, this one is a no brainer. Read the article. Just because someone says that "torture is repugnant" means nothing. The attorney general is the "Top Cop". If he won't denounce waterboarding as unconstitutional it can still be practiced,regardless of what he "says".

It's like saying "Murder is bad", but then when it happens, you don't prosecute because you don't think it is "against the law". Watch how these people play with words.

To quote my favorite action figure commercial from years ago... "There is more than meets the eye."

Wallace

"I am eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice. I like Michael Mukasey. I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot. America needs to be certain and confident of the bedrock principle - deeply embedded in our laws and our values - that no one, not even the president, is above the law."

well said Senator... well said.
Now if someone can help our fellow Americans who insist on supporting secrecy and hazy answers from both parties to understand that, things would be much better.

Wallace

We've already been through two of Bush's torture-loving A.G.s; we don't need a third.

Enough is enough. Confirm Mukasey and get on with it. We're going to have a new president in a few months, and then there will be a new attorney general. And that choice will likely be Democratic anyway. Then again, this kind of nitpicking does nothing but turn off voters like myself, who make or break every midterm or presidential election. And if we don't show up at the polls or vote Democratic... well, to state the obvious, the Republicans win.

So go ahead, Democrats in the D.C. Sandbox. Keep playing your little games with the other Republican children and keep on ignoring the real issues that got you in power in the first place (Iraq, healthcare, immigration, etc.). Keep ignoring the voters. Keep showing the American people your utter contempt for us. That'll win you the White House for sure.

It makes you wonder how these guys get on the ballot when Stephen Colbert can't. We can get all these jokers on a ballot but not a comedian by trade?